West Mids mappers...
If you haven't logged into your OSM account or done any editing recently you
may be unaware of the forthcoming proposed licence change for OSM. A major
part of that process is to sign up to new contributor terms.
If you have not logged into OSM recently could you please do
Hi All,
In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively)
large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they
aren't stations (and often aren't any railways there, either). I'm
proposing that we don't tag former, disused or fictional stations in a
way that
On 19 April 2011 09:21, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they
don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a
particularly useful approach
I completely agree. As a fellow data user, I think the rule of
I agree
Cheers
Bob
--- On Tue, 19/4/11, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com
Subject: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
To: Talk-GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tuesday, 19 April, 2011, 8:21
Hi All,
In making my recent
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes:
In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively)
large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they
aren't stations
I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they
don't exist (such as disused=yes)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I've even seen
status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice
if it did...
Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag. Desire
paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall
80n 80n80n@... writes:
I've even seen status=desire
Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path
Ah, you're right. I'm glad I didn't try to retag it.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com
___
Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine.
(railway=abandoned_station would also be possible)
This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current
rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't
have to do anything special to
Lennard wrote:
Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine.
(railway=abandoned_station would also be possible)
This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current
rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't
have to do
Hi,
On 04/19/11 11:10, Lennard wrote:
Granted, as a maintainer of a few maps, I'm biased. I just detest those
negating tags. This is a $shazbaz. Oh, no, it isn't!
It's often natural language that makes people do that. For example,
people say: This is a railway line under construction, or
On 19 April 2011 10:30, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Lennard wrote:
Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine.
(railway=abandoned_station would also be possible)
This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current
rendering databases
I have been wondering how much data has been imported into OSM from OS
Opendata and who has accepted the CTs. I still think that the CTs ask
for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the
Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are
the most
Hi,
On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote:
I still think that the CTs ask
for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the
Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are
the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that
have accepted the
On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote:
I still think that the CTs ask
for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the
Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are
the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of
On 18 April 2011 23:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Richard Bullock wrote:
It's on the Copyright page though
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and
database right 2010.
That is, IIRC, what we were required to
Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to
layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I
have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia,
London and now Kent.
The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of
On 19 April 2011 14:14, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19/04/11
On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote:
... railways at layer=1 or -1
Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a
feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original
mappers (or a visit) should be able to resolve that easily.
In the process
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to
layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I
have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East
On 19/04/11 14:50, Andy Allan wrote:
He's
also removed the layer tags from stretches of the railway, for example
at
http://osm.org/go/euunor2Ku--
which again, those of us who know that area know the railway is on a
On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only
apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true.
Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It
is simply there to
On 19 April 2011 14:49, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote:
... railways at layer=1 or -1
Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a
feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only
apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true.
Actually, that's
On 19 April 2011 14:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
wrote:
Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made
to
layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying
Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the
National Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that it is not
rendered on the cycle map.
I've rummaged around in the history of this issue and located what I
think are the most relevant thread starters:
On 19 April 2011 15:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only
apply to ways
On 19/04/2011 15:26, Peter Miller wrote:
That is not what the wiki says (and said before my edits). Before my
edits it said: ...
It really doesn't matter what the wiki says. What matters is that
someone's mapped something and recorded some information and you're
removing that
I recently cycled following Byway signs to the Cambridgeshire border
near Gamlingay (where the signs disappeared ..) I later extended the
relation for that part of the Byway which I found by searching the Wiki.
The Sustrans network is often better mapped in OSM than on the Sustrans
website.
monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote:
Sent: 19 April 2011 3:24 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the
National
Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that
Being cast as the most guilty party threatening OSM by having the greatest
number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd contribute to
make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller on this. I
trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed the CTs.
I've been remiss in getting another Nottingham Pub Meet-up organised.
I'm going to suggest next Tuesday 26th April at the Lincolnshire
Poacher, Mansfield Road, from 19:30 onwards. Preferably in the back-room
snug. I'll check out if they do food at that time.
I'll be outside at 18:30 for
I have also made some contributions based on OS OpenData and have just
accepted the new CTs.
I am disappointed that it got to the point that we had to accept or decline
the new terms before the issue over the OS data has been settled, but
reasoned that the vast majority of my contributions have
On 19/04/2011 17:05, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote:
These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he
will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future.
I guess we need
On 19 April 2011 20:06, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my
non-OS based contributions being removed,
That would only be the case if/when we proceed to the next stage in
the licence change process and you
34 matches
Mail list logo
